Monday, July 17, 2017

The Pteranodano and Billy Meier

Because
it isn’t time for the premiere of Game of
Thrones Season 7, and I have nothing better to do, I thought I’d kick
another sleeping dog (sorry of that analogy offends). For laughs, I took a look
at the Pteranodano photograph that was allegedly taken by Billy Meier during a
July 1975 trip to a world some 9.38 billion light years away which is about
halfway across the known universe. It’s a badly focused picture with little
real detail that is actually somewhat reminiscent of those first photographs taken
in the early 19th century but you can recognize the flying dinosaur.

Billy Meier

This
photograph wasn’t published in any of Meier’s books as near as I can tell, but
was shown around the United States as part of a program about Meier’s space and
time travels. I wanted to find a way to connect it to Meier as the photographer
because some of what I had seen didn’t provide any real source. I did find a
connection at:

In
the course of the presentation, it was said that Meier had taken the picture,
as he had those of other dinosaurs. We were even treated to a picture of Meier
in a spacesuit walking about on another planet, outside the spacecraft so that
he could get the pictures (which has been identified as a picture from a
science fiction movie).

Karumudi Mahesh
Chowdary tells me the video showing two people flipping through an album
containing Meier's space and time travel photographs are Wendelle Stevens
(flipping the album) and Randolph Winters (holding camcorder) in 1989. Winters and Wendelle are just flipping through Meier’s album taking pictures of the
pictures Meier had taken. But as I say this established a link between Meier and the
picture of the Pteranodano.

Note
that the alleged trip was in July 1975. That date is important because various
researchers and interested parties found a much clearer illustration of that
particular dinosaur in a book about dinosaurs. The illustration was apparently
painted in 1960 and appeared in a book published in 1972, or some three years
before Meier took the picture. This would seem to prove, in at least one case,
Meier had attempted to pass off a poor photograph of a painting by an
Earth-based artist as a real photograph of a dinosaur. You can see the
photographs at:

The
dinosaur pictures, both the painting and the alleged photograph (yes, I know it
is a real photograph but it is a photograph of a painting) can be found
beginning at 6:31 in this video.

Well,
not so fast say the champions of Meier’s claims. This has all been explained
though not as clearly as I would like. It might be that the translation I was
reading wasn’t as good as it could have been so we can overlook some of the
technical problems. I found my way to:

Here
we learn that Meier didn’t take the photograph, but it was in with those that
he had taken. Now the story becomes a little more complicated, but I think I
have sorted it out. We are told, “In their blindness and
their investigative delusion, BEAM’s [BEAM being Meier’s initials or in other
words, it is Meier] opponents stubbornly and firmly maintain that the
aforementioned photo was personally taken by ‘Billy’ on the space journey in
July of 1975, without concerning themselves, however, with the true history of
its origin and the actual contexts of the picture.”

Well, we did see a
video of that claim being made. That the picture had been taken by Meier, so
those who are suggesting it have a good case. But, again, there is another
twist here. “After the freshly developed dinosaur pictures were in the hands of
‘Billy,’ these were seen and inspected by Quetzal [Quetzal was Commander of all
Plejaren stations in our solar system]. During this, dozens of pictures
were noted by him, which quite clearly could not have come from the world NEBER
[the planet Meier visited in July 1975] and, therefore, had not been taken by ‘Billy,’
about which Quetzal got very angry. It was obvious that false and manipulated
pictures had been foisted on BEAM once more by a foreign hand. Many of the
pictures had obviously been photographed from a book and were to have been
smuggled into BEAM’s photo collection as so-called cuckoo’s eggs.”

So Meier had them in a
photo album that itself was photographed by Horn and Stevens. While that doesn’t
seem to match with the later tale, we learn, “Before the original photos were
removed and destroyed by Quetzal, however, the foundation member of FIGU, Guido
Moosbrugger, came into the possession of some copies. However, he had to make the
promise to the Plejaren and ‘Billy,’ never to make the copies available to the
public or to get rid of these in any way because the falsification from a
foreign hand was also among the preserved photos. Should he fail to comply with
the instruction, the pictures would have to be immediately confiscated and
destroyed by the Plejaren, as this also happened with the originals of ‘Billy.’
To this day, Guido Moosbrugger feels bound to his promise and has always kept
the pictures under wraps.”

But, of course, he
didn’t because somehow the picture was released, even if only on a poor-quality
video made of the pictures in Meier’s photo album. But that still doesn’t
actually explain where they originated. The excuse:

The Plejaren’s
investigations into this incident yielded the following: Since the “Men in
Black” organization, which committed itself to “Billy,” couldn’t eliminate him
after several failed assassination attempts (ultimately 21 of these overall),
it very strongly forced individuals who were cooperating with “Billy,” like the
aforementioned photographer Schmid, to bring BEAM into discredit. So they
meticulously planned their intrigues and defamation for the long run;
consequently, the effects of their machinations should have first begun to work
themselves out in the near future. Several times, the “Men in Black” also tried
to achieve their goal at the Semjase Silver Star Center with attacks on the
vehicles of the members or by intimidations and kidnapping attempts of the
children, etc. In this form, also the photographer Schmid, whom “Billy” had
incorporated with the permission of the Pleiadians/Plejaren, was forced by the
"Men in Black" to produce falsifications of the photographs. On
several occasions, pictures that Schmid had received from “Billy” were
falsified from the ground up or replaced by forgeries, as this also happened
with the Asket and Nera photos and with the aforementioned dinosaur photo. In
this way, Eduard A. Meier, already at the beginning of his contacts with the
Pleiadians/Plejaren, received false slides, negatives or manipulated photos
back from Schmid unnoticed. This photographer has passed away in the meantime
and, therefore, is no longer able to provide any information at all on these machinations.
[Isn’t that convenient?]

Ironically, it seems that:

The fact is that the
opponents of “Billy” never concerned themselves in an honest form with the true
origin of the purported dinosaur pictures and did not investigate the actual
source. Otherwise, they would have discovered that the purported pictures were
not put into circulation by FIGU or “Billy” Meier but by a malevolent, foreign
hand [Michael Horn and Wendelle Stevens?], with the intent to harm him. Many
allegedly notable UFO researchers and self-proclaimed Meier experts, in their
investigative delusion, have jumped on the train of falsification and
prevarication, without examining the true sources. This practice can be found
on the Internet in innumerable articles about BEAM. Nevertheless, the actual
truth about the photo will one day let so many ufologists leap over the shadow
of embarrassing disgrace. In actual fact, no sound evidence exists, which
proves that the aforementioned photo was taken by “Billy” Meier. With not a
single word or written testimony has BEAM ever claimed this on his own, and
indeed, because of the simple fact that the aforementioned picture of the
pterosaur, along with many other forgeries, had not been taken by “Billy”
Eduard Albert Meier himself but had been foisted on him by a foreign hand
[though on the video, that claim is made]. These facts correspond to the truth,
even if the truth doesn’t want to be accepted by his opposition – as is the
case so often.

Finally, to explain
all of this, we learn:

The truth about the
so-called dinosaur photos will hardly be published by the notorious
occupational critics because through the aforementioned photo, a certain
inconsistency in the Meier UFO Case can actually be found – an inconsistency
that certainly makes sense since the image does, in fact, concern a forgery. To
the disappointment of all the glorious investigative specialists, the forgery
was, however, not created by BEAM but rather by his opposition – completely in
line with: BEAM’s Men in Black opponents hoodwink BEAM’s ufologist opponents.
There, two drunks probably beat on each other’s fingers[whatever the hell that
means]. But at least a good job must be granted to BEAM’s opponents, with
regard to the discovery of this forgery. The book found to have been used for
this is not a bad achievement and is also of good use for FIGU. As a critical,
searching, and inquiring human being - even in the case of “Billy” Meier – I am
fully aware of a certain sense of achievement in investigation. I must admit,
however, that I much prefer to use my time and energy for an argumentation in
favor of the true truth about BEAM than for superficial and blind faultfinding.

But
that’s not all. According to Matt Knight in a comment to this blog, the
copyright date on the book had been changed as just another way to discredit
Meier. Knight wrote to my earlier post, “I've finally realized
what Mahesh's [another of those posting a comment] problem is. He obviously has
never experienced life in a culture where making backdated books to fool the
public would be taken very seriously by authorities and would be a punishable
crime if it were true [I’m not sure what crime this would be]. Switzerland is
not the kind of country where anyone can make cheap knock-off T-shirts,
passports, websites, or, blogs and claim they have real value.”

In
case it wasn’t clear there, Horn added, “To follow up on Matt's
correct assessment of Mahesh's problems in part stemming from lack of
experience with a culture such as Switzerland, Mahesh fails to understand the
mechanism of pre-digital book publishing, where it was common for books to take
a year - or even years - to be published.”

So now we have a
couple of excuses for way the fake picture was claimed to be one that Meier had
taken. First, it wasn’t taken by him but slipped into a bunch of other pictures
that he had taken as a way to discredit him. The Men in Black did it or maybe
it was the CIA.

Now we learn that the
book that held the actual illustration, had a faked copyright date on it. A
backdated book to fool the public so that we can see the vast conspiracy out there
attempting to discredit Meier.

Then Horn chimes in
with the fact that books, back in the old days which, of course, was the last
part of the 20th century, sometimes took months and even years to be
published. This would be relevant if the book was copyrighted at the time of
submission of the manuscript, but that’s not the way it worked. The copyright
date was the month and year in which it was published.

What
we are left with is evidence that Meier had taken a picture of a Pteranodon
that was an illustration from a book published two years earlier. Caught with
this problem, we learn that Meier hadn’t taken the picture but some
unidentified organization whose mission it was to discredit Meier had taken the
picture and slipped it in with all the others that Meier had taken on that day
in July. It’s not completely clear how they might have done that, only that
they had.

That
picture, identified as a fake by Quetzal, and who demanded that it be
destroyed, failed to get that done, and the next thing we know it is being
circulated by Meier’s pals, Horn and Stevens, as the real thing. But when it is
discovered that it was part of another, earlier book, we learn that this was
not a picture taken by Meier but someone else. You just have to ask if any of
this makes any sense at all.

These
are the facts as presented about this picture. Is this alone enough to
discredit Meier, or was it really some conspiracy cooked up by the Men in
Black. I believe this does suggest something about the reliability of the Meier
testimony. Others, I guess, will disagree.

43 comments:

What amazes me is the 21 'assassination attempts'. This has to be a world record*. Hitler, the most hated man in the world in his day, survived ~25. Most people have never heard of Billy Meier. How does he rate 21?r

The video showing two people flipping through an album containing Meier's space and time travel photographs are Wendelle Stevens (flipping the album) and Randolph Winters (holding camcorder) in 1989.

"The illustration was apparently painted in 1960 and appeared in a book published in 1972, or some three years before Meier took the picture. "

From my website which has more background and detailed:http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/photos-and-videos/outer-space-pictures-pteranodon/"In fact the painting was made by Zdeněk Burian in 1960 and was first featured in a book ‘Prehistoric reptiles and birds’ published by a Czech paleontologist Josef Augusta in 1961."

In FIGU Special Bulletin 20 (2005), Meier and Plejaren ETs also claim that they identified a few genuine photos and published them in Contact Notes since 2002. As it turns out, we have investigated these photos and found almost all of them to be fakes ripped off from NASA animations, magazines, documentaries, etc. http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/photos-and-videos

Our own video without commentary can be seen here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-wISYli9DU

The second sentence of your op-ed is incorrect. You say that 9.38 billion light years is half way across the known universe, but in fact, half way across the known universe is an astounding 7,869 octillion light years. That is the half diameter of the solid state universe. https://billymeier.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/cr-143-seven-layers-of-the-universe/ The Swiss/Germans use a comma instead of a period, so I'm not exactly sure if they mean 7.869 or 7,869, but you are way off in any case.

That's a pretty big discrepancy or error in reporting, which is to be expected from people who have only scratched the surface of the case.

You also fail to mention the most important point about the false photographs: The following response was given on February 3rd, 1998, during the 260th Contact:

Ptaah: …”Overall, as we’ve determined through detailed investigations, you had made 1,476 photos with your Olympus ECR 35 mm camera, as well as 34 films with your movie camera that you could use with just one hand. Of the photos, several hundred were stolen from you, and moreover, at least which we could clarify, 230 of these were falsified. There was also falsifying through the manipulation of several films, and to be sure, in the way that our aircraft were suddenly represented as though these had been suspended from thin strings or wires, etc., and so, the impression was made that these were models….”

Excuse me if I don't accept your source as valid and retreat to the more mundane science, which I'm sure you'll warn us about doing. I was suggesting the distance from Earth in the observable universe, which is different from the known universe. The figures I have seen suggest the known universe is something like 93 billion light years. My figure was based on estimates made a few years ago which are now considered by many astronomers to be in error. They, however, do not represent anything near the figure you quote, and I find your source to be wanting in credibility. That is both Billy Meier and Ptaah.

But remember, 230 photographs that were on-time alleged to have been taken by Billy Meier have been falsified... that should give you pause.

In regards to the Billy Meier story, a good starting point is to ask one simple question. If there were extra-terrestrials among us that sincerely wanted to help the human race, would using an obscure, unknown individual such as Billy Meirer be the means by which they would do it?

Of course, the simple and truthful answer is a resounding NO! Having a go-between to deliver the message/word who has no credentials, authority or following (which is still the case today) would make no sense for any intelligent form as this method would surely not work and they would know it in advance.

This can be proven 100% because it can be safely stated the overwhelming population on this planet has never heard of Billy Meirer and the majority of those that have, don't believe his story. Otherwise, he would have a current day following greater than Jesus Christ instead of a small group living in a compound with him in Switzerland.

Seriously, the entire premise is nonsensical and the supposed "proof" to back up the claims does not exist. However, whenever hard facts are used to debunk this hoax, even more inane claims are made to defend it, such as with the photos.

Unfortunately, homo sapiens have been hard wired to be gullible, naïve and often just plain stupid. Carlo Ponzi, Bernie Madoff and many others are proof of this and you can add the name Billy Meier to the list. He wasn't the first and unfortunately he won't be the last to make the infamous list of scammers. Just use a little common sense and logical thinking, although I know that is getting harder and harder to do is this world gone mad.

@Dougall,"...There was also falsifying through the manipulation of several films, and to be sure, in the way that our aircraft were suddenly represented as though these had been suspended from thin strings or wires, etc., and so, the impression was made that these were models…...."

LOL. You guys can always fall back on a career in stand up, or maybe SNL.

BTW, 'measurements' of the size of the Universe are always -estimates- based on current -theories-, not established facts.

You guys should at least -try- to present numbers that don't contradict the scientists. To do so enhances credibility.

Not one single comment on how the heck do you alter publication dates and copyrights assigned, not to mention international book serial numbers. The facts are indisputable, unless you change the facts, which is why I post this comment. When trying this case in a court of law, the undeniable proof of who said what when, cannot be altered, this is why copyright dates and IBSN's are so critical. When your understanding of how things are is challenged, the logical mind will rely on efforts, through logic and reason, the exact opposite is true when dealing with people here who fail to accept that our entire world has been based on lies and deceptions since time immemorial, and if you find this statement hard to "believe" revert back to ANY gospel of religion. The truth does not require your "belief" in it in order to exist, the truth exists REGARDLESS of your "belief" in it. Belief is what the liars rely on for others too lazy to determine for themselves, what truth is.

I could be wrong but are you saying there is irrefutable proof to support the Billy Meier story using publication dates, copyrights and international book serial numbers?

If so, I am guessing this would be in reference to predictions associated to Billy Meier and/or his alien connections. If this is in fact the case, then of course you can provide a link to a credible publisher or credible seller that can confirm the published date of an article or book with a specific prediction made that later occurred. There is no shortage of predictions that were made so there shouldn't be any problem providing at least one reliable source to support the claim.

Please do not use contact notes, or anything published by the "inner circle" such as FIGU or Michael Horn as the operable term is "credible source" and if you can provide that I may become a convert. If not, you seriously need to rethink your position.

Do you not see the irony of calling a rural-living Swiss man, who does not actively seek any publicity and speaks limited English, "obsure, unknown" on a blog in English about his evidence in English with many comments linking to other English language websites solely dedicated to discussing this evidence? Obviously not.

As for your question about copyrights...

'Message From The Pleiades: The Contact Notes of Eduard Billy Meier' 1988 UFO Photo Archives & Genesis III Publishing, Inc., 401 pages, ISBN 0-934269-14-0, edited and annotated by Wendelle Stevens, was written from German language originals collected by the Stevens, Elders and Welch investigative team during their six year onsite investigation. Contents of this book cover Meier's "First Observation" and include contacts 1-35 [January 28, 1975 - September 16, 1975].

Page 79 of this book specifically mentions bromine gasses and "atom-splitting" "operations" dissolving the ozone layer by 6.38% in 60 years whereby "holes" in the protective screen allowed ultraviolet radiation to invade the atmosphere and destroy all life. Page 79 can be read in full here: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/401594491764367078/

Bear in mind that Stevens had this information in his possession in 1979 and had published excerpts of it as the information was being translated into English, culminating in this book form in 1988, whereby the first discovery of Atom bombs connected to ozone damage was not make public until around 1988: http://www.theyfly.com/PDF/ProofBeyondCorrected.pdf

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (a protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer) is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion - including Bromine gasses. The Protocol was agreed on 16 September 1987, and entered into force on 1 January 1989, followed by a first meeting in Helsinki, May 1989. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

Therefore, as Stevens had this information in 1979 and that copyright year is specifically listed in 'Message From The Pleiades: The Contact Notes of Eduard Billy Meier', and as there was no convenience such as the internet to find information, I look forward to your explanation as to how an American had this information in his possession in German in 1979 and published a book about in 1988 before scientists had even met to discuss it.

The theory that CFCs were causing atmospheric trouble was proposed in the Molina-Rowland hypothesis that suggested the release of CFM’s (Chlorofluoromethanes) into the atmosphere might lead to serious environmental harm. This is dated from June 1974, or more than six months before Semjase told Meier about it and five years before Stevens published the information. Therefore, the information was in the hands of terrestrial scientists before it was revealed to Meier.

Yes, but, how did a man living in pre-digital Switzerland, with no academic qualifications in that subject, or, any demonstrable access to that specific hypothesis, know and state this as a fact in the 70's, before that hypothesis became accepted as such in around 1987/88? I hadn't heard of the Molina-Rowland hypothesis before today: Who had? A small niche of scientists publishing limited theoretical papers on the subject and the one referencing this on Wikipedia years after the fact, so that we can now say look it was published before Meier?

hypothesis 1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.)

Apply that to over 200+ specific examples of Billy's accuracy before his stated "fact" (he never said they were theories) became such and work out the probability of someone being able to achieve that through best-guessing (from hypotheses only). Impossible, I think you'll agree, but, let me know if you want to test that yourself and I'll set and agree some parameters with you.

Now consider all the other abilities fake skeptics afford Meier in model-making, metallurgical, recording, and other skills, when there's is no record of Meier ever having trained with anyone to gain such skills and the idea he is faking it appears preposterous to anyone with a brain, especially when considering, with witnesses attesting to the fact, that he was being shot at repeatedly and all other associated ills and misfortunes that befell him due to all this. There has to be a reason for this and the only one skeptics' muster is money, or fame as they live in a cynical world where they lust after that and where everyone lies and deceives, especially, and provably, themselves.

I maintain that there is no way anyone on Earth can know that any individual on Earth is 'the only authentic contactee'. The attitude expressed in the quoted statement is a big part of the problem people have with Billy Meier.

Yet, Billy Meier and Michael Horn have the gall to claim that Billy Meier is the only one who is authentic.

I doubt very much that Michael Horn or any other Billy Meier follower would ever be willing to engage in a debate on the authenticity or otherwise of the Adamski or Menger contacts with someone who is knowledgeable about them (e.g. Timothy Good).

Why on Earth should Kevin Randle, or anyone else be supposed to prove that Billy Meier is not authentic, by debating about him, if the Meier group will not back up their ridiculous inference about other contactees with a similar debate?

The prediction was that no one on Earth knew the trouble with the ozone... which has been disproved. However:

The New York Times on September 6, 1974, reported, “The potential depletion of the ozone layer by nuclear explosions is a new, accidental discovery…”

On October 17, 1974, The New York Times reported, “The Defense Department estimates that an all-out nuclear war would significantly deplete the protective layer of ozone in the stratosphere…”

Science on October 25, 1974, reported that “Supersonic transports, aerosol sprays and nuclear weapons… are all potential sources of catalytic agents that penetrate the earth’s stratosphere and decompose the ozone…”

All publications that Meier could have seen, especially the New York Times which had European editions.

New York Times was not published in German in Switzerland at that time and there's nothing from what you quoted in there about Bromine gasses, specifically mentioned by Billy, in proven copyright from 1979 (in English - so we can assume this was available in German before then) so where did he get this from? As soon as you bring other sources, dispersed sources into it, you have to think about the probability of all those different sources being idnetified by Meier from all the possible misses he could have also published from them and then realise the impossible odds of him doing so.

The New York Time wasn't even called the New York Times in Europe in 1974 and the newsgroup only started printing in German in 1977 in Zürich, long after the information you cite was in English in English speaking countries only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_International_Edition

You said, "Therefore, as Stevens had this information in 1979 and that copyright year is specifically listed in 'Message From The Pleiades: The Contact Notes of Eduard Billy Meier', and as there was no convenience such as the internet to find information, I look forward to your explanation as to how an American had this information in his possession in German in 1979 and published a book about in 1988 before scientists had even met to discuss it."

I pointed out that the information was available to terrestrial scientists before Meier and Stevens had published anything about it and mentioned, specifically the Molina-Rowland hypothesis.

You said, "Yes, but, how did a man living in pre-digital Switzerland, with no academic qualifications in that subject, or, any demonstrable access to that specific hypothesis, know and state this as a fact in the 70's, before that hypothesis became accepted as such in around 1987/88? I hadn't heard of the Molina-Rowland hypothesis before today: Who had? A small niche of scientists publishing limited theoretical papers on the subject and the one referencing this on Wikipedia years after the fact, so that we can now say look it was published before Meier?"

The original question was not about how Meier would have learned this, but that the information was known to terrestrial scientists contrary to the claim. However, your point was not without merit, so I said, "The New York Times on September 6, 1974, reported, “The potential depletion of the ozone layer by nuclear explosions is a new, accidental discovery…”

On October 17, 1974, The New York Times reported, “The Defense Department estimates that an all-out nuclear war would significantly deplete the protective layer of ozone in the stratosphere…”

Science on October 25, 1974, reported that “Supersonic transports, aerosol sprays and nuclear weapons… are all potential sources of catalytic agents that penetrate the earth’s stratosphere and decompose the ozone…”

Which provided public access to the information in a widely circulated publication, which again disproved the idea that Meier had the information prior to terrestrial scientists, and did provide an avenue for Meier to explore.

You said, "The New York Time wasn't even called the New York Times in Europe in 1974 and the newsgroup only started printing in German in 1977 in Zürich, long after the information you cite was in English in English speaking countries only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_International_Edition

So you still haven't shown how Meier had access to that information."

And I say that (a), I have demonstrated an avenue for the information to have reached Meier without resorting to an obscure science publication and (b) the New Your Times provided wire service to newspapers around the world including those in Europe and those that had German language editions. I have shown the information was available on a number of platforms months before Meier talked about it.

But we have the mention of Dr. Michael McElroy at Harvard mentioned by the New York Times and then by Meier and you have to ask yourself, did alien creatures actually mention this guy to Meier, or did Meier pick up the name in the newspaper... and yes, I know that the article in the Times was dated three days after the date on the Meier contact, but the only proven date we have is from the publication of the material in 1979, so there is a suggestion here that Meier picked up the data from the newspaper.

At what point do you begin to wonder if this prediction wasn't predicated on all the publicly available information?

"I pointed out that the information was available... specifically the Molina-Rowland hypothesis." No, not all Meier's information from just one page was covered by that hypothesis, even IF Meier saw it, so, no, you didn't. Nor have you logically accounted for what spurred Meier to report these as facts when no-one else had before 1979, without miss, or, retraction according to your baseless hypotheses? You'd have to be very intelligent to state 6 facts in succession, when these were only in theory, and not make a mistake. How many hypotheses are dropped by Science on the way to confirming facts? Stating one (English) New York Times article equals the following on that page in 'Message From The Pleiades" is spurious, e.g., the "dangerous effects" of: "ultraviolet radiation" (1 source required), "bromine gasses" (2 - hypothesis in English not provably available in Switzerland), "affected and destroyed by an average measure of 6.38%" (3 sources), "in only 60 years" (4 sources), "Collapse within a few decades and be completely destroyed" (5 sources) "Everything that comes into reach of the radiation penetrating through the holes will be exposed to helpless destruction" (6 sources). Meier had no qualifications. If he was referring to hypotheses, don't you think he'd have many misses? So why none in his 600+ contact reports? You've not accounted for just 6 facts in "The original question", nor that Meier numbered all his CRs and rows (so we have a reference in 1979), including, this mention of the ozone-layer in 1951:

21. Through the guilt of the people, all storms will assume increasing and more violent forms, such as hail storms, blizzards and flooding rains, as however also the ozone-layer will become very dangerously damaged. 100. Also, when nature defends itself against the human madness of planetary destruction, the Earth becomes ever more naked and less fruitful, and through the fault of humans the air will burn, because the ozone shield will slowly be destroyed. 124. And through the fault of humans, chlorofluorocarbons sluice through the atmosphere, the Earth will burn, and melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer will take hold and demand many deaths, and all that because, through human irrationality, the majority of the ozone shield, which protects against the rays of the sun, will be destroyed, whereby the atmosphere will be like a curtain full of holes and the strong and burning light of the sun will burn the skin, and the eyes of many people will be permanently blinded.Source: theyfly.com/billy-meier%E2%80%99s-environmental-warnings-0

I've already answered your reference to "On October 17, 1974, The New York Times...." and you've dismissed that it minimises, to almost impossibility, the chances of Meier seeing this hypothesis beforehand, unless you can prove it? Nor does this explain Meier's uncanny ability to provably recognise facts, without error, before bing identified as such after 1979.

"The prediction was that no one on Earth knew the trouble with the ozone... which has been disproved" No, the 6 significant, successive FACTS listed above, published as facts before ANYONE else, are not covered in the source you cite and were not 'known' facts at all. This is an example of a false positive type I error in the fallacious acceptance of a hypothesis, i.e., if you look long enough and in enough places data can be found to support the hypothesis. You ignore anything you can't account for, e.g.: http://www.theyfly.com/corroboration-evidence. You impugn Stevens, Diletosso, to discredit Meier, when not one of Meier’s 1,200 UFO photos, films are proven by anyone to be faked, but, you think they are by a New York Times hypothesis not available in Switzerland. Seriously? How do you account for the 125 known eyewitnesses to the case? www.tjresearch.info/witnessa.htm www.tjresearch.info/witness.htmwww.tjresearch.info/witness-list.htm

The original premise was that Meier had predicted the depletion of the ozone and the subsequent problems before any terrestrial scientists were aware of the problem. That premise was disproved by a number of scientific papers and newspaper articles showing awareness months before the Meier prediction was published. You said that Meier would not have had access to this material because it was in English and not readily available to a Swiss farmer. The problem is not if it was available but that it existed prior to prediction by Meier negating the original premise.

I also mentioned that The New York Times provided wire service copy to various publications in Europe which means that the story would have been translated into various languages. This means that the story was available in Europe in a form that would have been available to Meier, suggesting the idea to him. This all suggests that his prediction could have been based on that rather than information provided by an alien source.

You said that none of his pictures or films had been proven faked, but only if you ignored a body of evidence provided by independent sources. Many, if not all of them have suggested some fakery involved. But, overlooking that, 230 of the pictures that had been released through Meier and his friends have been shown to be faked. The response? Meier didn’t take the faked photographs though he originally claimed to have done so. No, the faked photographs were planted by the Men in Black. So, there are faked photographs linked to Meier, it is the source that is now in dispute. I believe the source was Meier but you seem to believe the source was an outside agency that somehow planted these photographs on Meier to discredit him.

Or, maybe it was his Pleiadian pals who had planted the faked photographs so those who couldn’t handle the revelation that aliens were visiting our world would have a comfortable fallback position. The faked photos allow them to reject the idea of alien visitation and keep their belief structures intact.

I could go on by pointing out that Jim Dilettoso had declared the Oliver’s Castle video as real but we now learn it was a hoax. This suggests that some, if not all of Dilettoso’s analyses, are flawed and that suggests that his endorsement of the Meier photos is also flawed… or could be flawed if you wish for the best-case scenario. I won’t even talk about the misrepresentation of the analysis done by the computer firm that he and Wendelle Stevens went to.

Oh, yes, George Adamski supplied the names of many witnesses to his activities. Was George Adamski in communication with alien beings? And if not, why not?

The question, I suppose, is when are you going to look at all the evidence rather than just repeating what the true believers have to say? Isn’t it time to look at some of the independent research that has been conducted over the years?

"The original premise was that Meier had predicted the depletion of the ozone"

My questions were about the facts on page 79. Where's your references for the "number of scientific papers and newspaper articles showing awareness"? What's "awareness" got to do with something was a hypotheses or a FACT? Based on evidence, Meier did foretell this as fact, not theorise about the ozone damage before 1979. If there was only one fact, it could be called chance, but, there were 6, plus hundreds of environmental warnings as in the 7th Contact, February 25, 1975 and 35th Contact, September 16th, 1975 that great atmospheric disturbance would result in climate changes, adverse weather conditions & lead to genetic mutations in plants, animals and humans. You haven’t established any evidence that he had such access to any of this.

"The New York Times provided wire service copy to various publications in Europe which means that the story would have been translated into various languages."

Where's your source? Why does it mean it would have been translated and available to the Swiss? Simply provide evidence for the you claims you say exist, today, in the internet age, that you’re claiming you KNOW he had access to. Or, withdraw all your false accusations until you've actually studied the case.

"You said that none of his pictures or films had been proven faked"

The ones that are considered fake, are and were considered fake by Meier, so no "proven" fake in terms of faking any photos Meier says are genuine:theyfly.com/corroboration-evidence theyfly.com/UFO-Proof-&-UFO-Evidence.htmlYou don’t have any of the credentials of ANY of these people who, over 30 years ago, authenticated the photos: theyfly.com/Scientific_Experts.html

"it is the source that is now in dispute"

What are you disputing? One source, two? How do you explain that film was loaded into Billy's camera by Stevens' investigative team just before a contact, without telling him and was removed hours later upon his return, developed in their own labs and produced clear UFOs photos that were all tested to be large objects some distance away from the camera.

"I believe the source was Meier"

Belief is not truth. If Meier could produce clear daytime UFO pictures under conditions listed above and pass the most rigid tests, even decades later, why would he need to fake other photos? Why risk muddying genuine photos with photos you know could be identified from popular sources? If you could fart coins, would you dig up metal, melt it and pour it into coin presses for more?

"Jim Dilettoso had declared the Oliver’s Castle video as real"

Jim said someone could have faked the Castle video with CGI: cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes4.htmlBilly's photos are taken in the pre-digital age and he said the introduction of the digital era is why he no longer takes UFO photos. To show a balanced argument you should shared that the investigative team slipped in a fake model UFO in Meier's real pictures, to test Dilettoso's skills and he identified it 10 minutes: youtu.be/NrV63mZOSp8?t=1h1m8s

"George Adamski supplied the names of many witnesses"

Are lemons oranges because they're both fruit? It's a false comparison. Meier provably had 125 witnesses. Do you know what Adamski's 7 "witnesses" saw? Adamski meeting someone named "Orthon", a "long-haired young man from Venus", in the Californian desert in 1952 who was alien because "his trousers were not like mine". Adamski's "witnesses" Al Bailey, Jerrold Baker said Adamski was a hoaxer. None close to Meier, real witnesses, have signed sworn affidavits to support Meier's evidence.

The question is, when are you going to look at all the evidence rather than just repeating what the true believers say? Isn’t it time to look at some of the independent research that has been conducted instead of clutching at straws?

Here is the big problem folks. There have been multiple opportunities where it would have been easy to give credibility to the Billy Meier story but for some reason these opportunities have gone to waste.

First, why isn't there a video tape of one of the alien craft landing and then taking off again? Wouldn't have taken long to do and this would have provided definitive evidence but there is no video.

Meier also did a short video walking around with a supposed ray gun and we see a hole in a tree but why didn't we actually see him firing the ray gun and making the hole? Wouldn't that have made a believer out of most skeptics and isn't the goal to convince people tis story is legit?

Any of these should have been easy to produce if this case was real so what is the reason why none of this evidence was produced, except for the fact this case is not real.

And what's up with the assassination attempts that I believe are now at 23? This guy lives in an area if someone really wanted to get rid of him it wouldn't be hard to do. Is it because his ET friends love him so much and are protecting him? If that's the case, then aren't these the same ETs that have allowed him to suffer through all his life and have done nothing to help, except now warding off endless assassination attempts?

Seriously, this is by far one of the best hoaxes ever perpetrated but that's all it is - a hoax. As I said, it would have been real easy to produce just one piece of conclusive, irrefutable evidence but instead we are left with more questions than answers. Like the saying goes "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" and it's just not there.

Sorry to place a label on you JimG, but you are no different from every other religiously/politically deluded skeptic. The whole point is absolutely NOT to CONVINCE ANYONE of ANYTHING, the point is to get people to THINK for themselves, which as yet is demonstrably NOT happening!!! You, like so many like you fail miserably when it comes to understanding the whole reason why only ONE single Earth human being has contact with the Plejaren. Rather than find new ways to belligerently refuse to think for yourself, why not consider the facts as they are here on Earth, we are ego and profit driven and this is the small part of how corrupt our planet is when it comes to truth in just about ANYTHING. We are far more concerned about how to make people see us as better than them rather than to UNDERSTAND that we are ALL equal and symbiotic in regards to all nature that has sustained us. We were not designed to profit at the expense of the planet we rely on, and we were not designed to praise gods or any other false idols, and we were not meant to kill each other in order to be the last one standing on a complete wasteland. Rather than perpetuate disharmony among ourselves, we are SUPPOSED to look at creations all around us for the examples on how to live. Due to the corruption that began thousands of years ago, we have adopted an existence that is NOT sustainable and the sooner you and every other wannabe somebodies figure this out the sooner we can correct the damage that WE have done.

Are lemons oranges because they're both fruit? It's a false comparison. Meier provably had 125 witnesses. Do you know what Adamski's 7 "witnesses" saw? Adamski meeting someone named "Orthon", a "long-haired young man from Venus", in the Californian desert in 1952 who was alien because "his trousers were not like mine". Adamski's "witnesses" Al Bailey, Jerrold Baker said Adamski was a hoaxer. None close to Meier, real witnesses, have signed sworn affidavits to support Meier's evidence.

-------------

No, there were 6 witnesses to the George Adamski desert contact. Jerrold Baker was NOT one of them - he was credited with taking a photograph, which he later denied having taken. Jerrold Baker's testimony can be considered as anecdotal evidence that George Adamski hoaxed photographs, if you like to assume that other witnesses of Adamski-type craft worldwide have all been lying or mistaken, or that George Adamski hoaxed photographs of a type of aircraft that, despite the hoaxing, really exists in more-or-less the form he presented it as being.

Anyone can make similar negative assumptions about Billy Meier and his witnesses.

The part you write about the trousers being different is obviously absurd misrepresentation.

Huh. Well, despite a cruise-liner-load of opportunities going to waste on you, obviously, maybe de-clutter your mind from Hollywood a bit and question if real contact would be how it was imagined by a race that has not yet located their elbow? The credibility of anything is established by the evidence and that a big problem (for some folks).

"First..."

Oh there's a list (quickly clapping hands softly)...

"...why isn't there a video tape of one of the alien craft landing and then taking off..."

There's Video and Super 8mm film of them flying, disappearing, time jumping, shooting off in a semicircle at speeds that are incomprehensible and just messing about with their craft and their are photos of them landing, taking off, hovering, exhausting sparks, of alien hand prints burnt into a car bonnet by their acidic bodies.

"Meier also did a short video walking around with a supposed ray gun and we see a hole in a tree but why...?"

Do you think that REAL Ray guns look like something out of Star Wars or something? Peejung! Again, we've been given set ideas and nonsense about what ETs and UFOs really are. Meier looks to be taking a shot in the footage with the ray gun and the independent witnesses found and photographed a perfectly burnt, glass-like, oval-shaped dead straight hole in the tree trunk and all the leaves and branches were burnt clean off in a straight line and still smouldering.

Again, Meier isn't interested in whether WHAT he captured was to the standards of your favourite Hollywood movie. So many get easily tripped up by that and in "production values" instead of hypothesising if that actually supports the fact Billy couldn't afford to hire John Williams to do his soundtrack, even though he was offered a million by Spielberg to cover his life story. The production value should serve to answer those that think Meier is loaded or in material ways.

"And what's up with the assassination attempts that I believe are now at 23? This guy...?"

Yeh, erm whether you believe it or not, they happened and others were nearly shot and killed too and you can still see the bullet holes. Again The Plejaren aren't The X-ing Avengers and Billy is a tough man who will take on challenges most cannot even imagine and he wants no special treatment.

"Seriously, this is by far one of the best hoaxes ever perpetrated...".

Is it now? Prove it and do it and come back to us. Maybe ETs that see we need a shake in our thinking abilities think that asking questions could be a good thing for us to start to do? Many have thought it would be "real easy" to replicate the evidence too and failed and are still miserable about it (see their many miserable comments on YouTube). Extraordinary claims and evidence only require testing like any form of claim. Meier's evidence passed all scientific tests.

Daniel,

Honestly, I don't know much about the Adamski case nor pretend to know much about it or any interest in special trousers. My knowledge was gained from looking at one legible webpage (and Billy's info on the Adamski case) so I cannot claim to be an expert on that at all.

Pity Kevin and many here are unable to admit the same about their "research" of the Meier case, eh?

Let’s get back to basics here. According to Horn and Meier, “in the 7th Contact, 25 February 1975; 35th Contact, 16 September 1975, that “Connection of A-bomb testing, explosions to ozone damage, high frequency ‘elementary radiations’ unknown to terrestrial scientists, damage to Earth’s rotation, magnetic disturbances, polar displacement; contribution of bromine gases to ozone damage, penetration of UV through holes killing microorganisms, leading to disruptions in food chain, genetic mutations, other long term negative effects for humans and the planet.”

This statement is untrue when it was made. Terrestrial scientists had been studying this problem and information about that came out years before Meier made his prediction. In fact, looking at the Molina – Rowland theories, I find that there was discussion about it in several different arenas which means it was not as obscure as suggested.

The idea that gases were harmful to the ozone has been around since 1969 when Dutch chemist Paul Crutzen published a paper that described the major nitrogen oxide catalytic cycle affecting ozone levels. Crutzen demonstrated that nitrogen oxides can react with free oxygen atoms, thus slowing the creation of ozone (O3), and can also decompose ozone into nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and oxygen gas (O2). Some scientists and environmentalists in the 1970s used Crutzen’s research to assist their argument against the creation of a fleet of American supersonic transports (SSTs).

See https://www.britannica.com/science/ozone-depletion

The theory that atomic testing was partially responsible has been researched and found to be untrue. The following was found at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/7272651A.D. Christie, in the Journal of Geophysical Research, published on May 20, 1976, wrote, “Local changes in atmospheric ozone relative to background regional changes over a period during which a small megaton nuclear weapon was detonated in tropical latitudes have been studied by using backscatter UV observations from Nimbus 4 satellite. Little change in total ozone was observed, less than might have been expected from current models of NO/subx/ catalytic depletion. A further attempt was made to isolate changes at different levels by using derived ozone profile data from orbits intersecting the envelope containing bomb-modified air without success because of contamination of the data on shorter wavelenghts. It is concluded either that NO/subx/ yields have been overestimated or that there is an efficient NO/subx/ sink in the stratosphere that is not yet recognized.”

I have found several other articles in scientific journals and in the popular press that have rejected the idea that nuclear testing had any effect on the ozone. There are a few that suggest some but minimal effect. The real problem was not the testing but an atomic war. In that event, the ozone was the least of our worries. This prediction by Meier seems to have failed.

You might want to also look at: http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html.

The New York Times wire service began in 1970. Of course, the Dutch chemist’s study reported in 1969 seems to have made this argument moot. Horn’s corroboration of November 29, 1988, is disingenuous because it suggests that this was the first time that it was acknowledged, but the theories about the ozone depletion had been out there since 1969. Besides, many later studies have suggested that atomic testing as a cause was in error.

While we're at it please offer some guidance on the proper number of websites to visit before we are allowed to make intelligent comment. Can we count other things such as books, bulletins, and other printed matter that might not be readily available on the internet. Is there an approved list of sources, or can we just take a look at a cross section of them or are we restricted to such sites as theyfly.com and other sites that support the Meier tales?

It seems to me that you only want us to look at those sites supporting Meier and to reject all others. But with the internet we can see that many of the predictions that would have been so hard to vet in the past allows us to see some of the flaws that would have gone unnoticed, or should we just reject that information as biased?

BTW, it is not up to us to prove that the Meier contacts are a hoax, but up to you to prove they are authentic. For the vast majority of us, that has not happened.

And since you asked, Jim Lorenzen reported in the APRO Bulletin of August 1979, that in one of the videos in which there had been some sort of discrepancy that "Meier is supported in this statement by two witnesses from among his group of disciples, one of whom now claims that he was hypnotized into giving false testimony." I suppose we can reject this too because it came from Jim Lorenzen who said, "My current inclination is (and always has been) that the case is an elaborate hoax."

I am out of town, so currently can't address specific claims other than general ones for now.

Meier's Ozone information has already been debunked by us:http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/prophecies-predictions-probability-calculations/analysis-of-contact-reports-1-100/#Atom_Bomb_CFCs_Bromine_Ozone_Hole

And regarding Meier's access to scientific and other event related information, we have already established with evidence that Meier frequents the local book shops with his followers and purchases a lot of related books, magazines, etc., especially science, space, history and photography related ones. So, we have beyond reasonable doubt demonstrated that Meier has full access to vast information on many subjects. Several hundred newspaper clippings published in his several 'Contact Notes' volumes further suggests that he is aware of the world events, scientific or otherwise.http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/prophecies-predictions-probability-calculations/#Meier_has_no_access_to_Scientific_Information

And Matt, you claim if Meier had just been publishing random news (science) appearing in the media in his contact reports, there would have been many errors and mistakes in his predictions because science is not static but always improving itself with updated theories, facts and figures. And this is exactly what we at BMUFOR have discovered. There are dozens and dozens of such examples present at our website which eludes you for some reason.

See Pattern #3 and Pattern #4 in the url at the end:Pattern #3:Publish copied information that is already or later proven to be baloney or erroneous, or that is considered to be downright pseudoscience or myth obviously reflecting the woeful ignorance and also the inability to distinguish facts from fiction, reliable vs unreliable sources and new vs obsolete scientific findings, probably arising as a result of his poor discerning skills, which for the most part could be due to his lack of formal education which Meier, according to his own words, discontinued after his 6th grade. As a result of this, Meier gets his specific details wrong in EXACTLY same way the scientists and others had it wrong at the time Meier published it.

Pattern #4:Either slip in new specific details or alter the texts, conveniently, in later reprints/editions of his SELF-PUBLISHED books (Wassermannzeit publishing house) in order to make it accord with the latest information or scientific findings that invalidates the earlier published information. And these new and altered editions are published misleadingly with only the first edition publication dates printed on it instead of the latter edition publication dates (along with the former).

How do you create a two-part response without answering the question fully or still substantiating your position?

"Let’s get back to basics here."

Give it a few more decades of rubbishing those who've been warning us and that will become a reality, environmentally, socially.

"According to Horn and Meier... Connection of A-bomb testing, explosions to ozone damage, high frequency... long term negative effects for humans and the planet. This statement is untrue when it was made."

Wouldn't that be "These statements..." [plural] to be accurate according to my "original question"? You didn't find any scientist mentioning all 6 facts as proven facts before Meier's copyright of 1979.

"Terrestrial scientists had been studying this problem and information about that came out years before Meier made his prediction."

Round and round the mulberry bush... Yeh, er, failing to show how Meier could know 6 copyrighted facts in 1979, you quote Molina-Rowland. Mario J. Molina is an interesting guy. He talks of his early experiments, etc., and there being "too many people" in 1995, mirroring what Meier has been saying since the 1950s. Molina says his work was inspired by the question, "Is there some impact of human activity some of these very inert gasses that are being released into the atmosphere...?" at 10:12 in this video: https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1587Wikipedia confirms that in 1974, "Initial indifference from the academic community [to Molina-Rowland's theory] prompted the pair to hold a press conference at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Atlantic City in September 1974, in which they called for a complete ban on further releases of CFCs into the atmosphere.

So, the theory about "bromine gasses" was provably met with indifference & skepticism in 1974, 75, & 79? Actually, it was viewed with skepticism right up to after 1980, i.e., when it was globally recognised as a proven fact and after Meier's provable copyright of 1979, where he stated it as fact according to numbered contact dates in 1975 with earlier numbered mentions of threats to the ozone in 1951. No evidence supplied by Kevin of it being available in Switzerland, but, let's postulate it was: The creator of the theory said no-one accepted this theory in 1974. So, again, you've still not answered the basic premise of what would give Meier the confidence to write this and six other things as fact in 1975/79 and not get any misses? Molina says he came together with other scientists to get the word to a skeptical "public" and "people in government" "decision-makers" as Molina attests in 1995 in the video.

"The idea that gases were harmful to the ozone has been around since 1969 when Dutch chemist Paul Crutzen published a paper..."

This supports that someone else had a theory about Nitrous Oxide effects. Meier did not mention just one gas, but, many "gasses" which is actually more accurate in terms of what is accepted today as the damaging effects. Crutzen thought it was due to organic material destroying ozone and then posited it was planes in 1971, confirmed by Prof. Harold S. Johnson, but, the point is, they were still researching the effects until Molina came along in '74 with his theory. So, I think you'll agree, Meier stated FACTS whilst Nobel peace winning scientists were still in discussion about all these things in 1975 and didn't fully until after 1980.

"The theory that atomic testing was partially responsible has been researched and found to be untrue... A.D. Christie, in the Journal of Geophysical Research, published on May 20, 1976, wrote...”

Actually, Christie's ('76) observations were shown to be flawed by Harold S Johnson in 1977 as, "There is a wide range of uncertainty as to how much NOx and ozone the nuclear bomb injected into the stratosphere. The central expectation value, referred to 18 km, is that bomb-produced ozone would increase local stratospheric ozone by 40% on the first day; upon expansion of the cloud the increase drops to 2% by the eighth day; and it would require 2 months for the bomb-produced NOx to destroy the bomb-produced ozone. There would be very little NOx catalytic destruction of stratospheric ozone from this nuclear bomb during its first 10 days; it did not rise high enough into the stratosphere to cause a fast destruction of ozone."http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977JGR....82.3119J

Thanks for going to great lengths to point to references that independently confirm, that is the scientists' themselves, that their theories were treated with skepticism until after 1980, when we can verify Meier's publication date of all these things, stated as facts, with no misses, in 1979 despite him not having any formal academic training to reach such bang-on conclusions.

"The New York Times wire service began in 1970."

Good for them. So... what? That ship already sank as you did not show the information being published in Switzerland. Saying the same things many times does not magic them into correctness.

"While we're at it please offer some guidance on the proper number of websites to visit before we are allowed to make intelligent comment. Can we count other things such as books, bulletins...?"

No, just the facts are fine for me, thanks. Is there a suggestion here that your need to find more information, means the hypothesis you stated cannot be verified? Quickly, you better email Mahesh for some more Google search results (that actually back up Meier once you read on and get past all his biased conclusions}.

"It seems to me that you only want us to look at those sites supporting Meier and to reject all others..."

I took at look at all your information and proved it did not show what you said it did.

"BTW, it is not up to us to prove that the Meier contacts are a hoax, but up to you to prove they are authentic. For the vast majority of us, that has not happened."

So if I accused you of something that is bad and unsubstantiated, would it be up to you to prove that wasn't the case to me? Life may get tiring and wasteful following that approach.

"Meier is supported in this statement by two witnesses from among his group of disciples, one of whom now claims that he was hypnotized into giving false testimony."

So now we're back to third. fourth hand testimony again. Not really developing your arguments very much Kevin are you? Again show the references or retract your misinformation and lies.

And the spin continues... nothing will make a difference... no matter how much research I do, how many websites I visit, people I communicate with and talk to will suggest that maybe Milly Meier is not in communication with alien beings...

I will note that I even suggested that some in scientific circles are not convinced that above ground testing didn't cause trouble with the ozone (yeah, a confusing sentence with means there is still some debate)... but you ignore that.

So, spin away because this is not the only problem with the Meier information and that much of it reflects the scientific thought of the time the prediction was made rather than what we know today.

Matt Knight says: "Meier looks to be taking a shot in the footage with the ray gun and the independent witnesses found and photographed a perfectly burnt, glass-like, oval-shaped dead straight hole in the tree trunk and all the leaves and branches were burnt clean off in a straight line and still smouldering."

Basically, you didn't answer my question. If Meier actually had an advanced ray/laser gun then he would have shown it making a hole in the tree but he didn't. Instead he walks around for about 5 minutes on a video and you only at the end see a tree with a hole in it but of course this is good enough for you die-hard believers.

This is typical when anyone questions something that screams hoax - they get attacked for not buying into this tale and their questions never get answered. Really not worth having a discussion on this as the Billy Meier followers are close minded fanatics and nothing will ever sway them to accept the truth.

Maybe try thinking things through, e.g., you've obviously never used Super 8mm film, or you'd know it lasted for about 5 minutes and you'd never have enough of it for continuous live filming as it was expensive in the 70's/80's. Billy was filming himself with the ray gun. Independent witnesses then took photographs of the carnage immediately after Billy had returned the weapon. Remember ET contacts were going on when others were in the house, even if they were not allowed to directly witness these contacts, although, of course, accidents did happen and witnesses have reported bumping into the ETs by accident. Also, Billy has one arm and cameras and ray guns are tricky to operate with the feet.

Kevin/Mahesh,

Looking forward to reading your comments showing, easily, how Meier hoaxed the following in 1964:

(Notes: Not page 79 as I incorrectly stated and that was not noted by Kevin, despite his falsely accusing me in previous comments of not checking HIS evidence, even though anyone can ascertain in the above comments that I obviously did)

...and attempt, if you can, to clearly show how Meier hoaxed the following: http://www.theyfly.com/india-1964

If you cannot do this, then that will tell everyone the actual level of your expertise.

Matt Knight I am going to take your last comments on what I last posted to tear apart this nonsense ray gun story once and for all. I am going to do it in two parts. So let's begin with the first part:

"Maybe try thinking things through, e.g., you've obviously never used Super 8mm film, or you'd know it lasted for about 5 minutes and you'd never have enough of it for continuous live filming as it was expensive in the 70's/80's."

What the hell does that have to do with him not showing him firing the ray gun into a tree? He's got 5 minutes (actually 5min and 51 secs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1EQRms62nY) so your statement is totally lame as it would have taken on a few seconds for him to have fired the weapon and recorded it.

Next, "Billy was filming himself with the ray gun. Independent witnesses then took photographs of the carnage immediately after Billy had returned the weapon."

First, the word "carnage" means the killing of a large number of people. Are you saying Meier is a mass murderer and used the ray gun to kill a bunch of people?

And what about these independent witnesses - who were they and how soon after the "carnage" did they see the hole in the tree? Also, why didn't any of them ask Meier to do a live demonstration as that would have been easy to do - if the gun was real that is.

"Remember ET contacts were going on when others were in the house, even if they were not allowed to directly witness these contacts although, of course, accidents did happen and witnesses have reported bumping into the ETs by accident."

What kind of red herring is this? It makes no sense at all and has no bearing on the supposed hole in the tree by the ray gun. But this is what you people like to do, distract from the real issue and get off subject.

Your last comment was more like open mouth and insert foot.

"Also, Billy has one arm and cameras and ray guns are tricky to operate with the feet."

It should be perfectly obvious to even the most mentally challenged that Meirer was using a tripod when he did his 5min 51 sec video. Watch the video and you will see him pointing at the tree with the hole in it. He could have easily video taped himself holding the ray gun and firing it into the tree instead of just pointing at it like he did. Come on man, you don't need me or anyone else to debunk this, you're doing a fine job on your own.

I am now going to go over 3 other items and the last one should be a clincher to those with any intelligence.

First, the ray gun looks like a kid's toy so if it looks like a prop from a Flash Gordon episode it most likely is.

Second, we have some photos of a supposed alien wearing some Halloween type outfit with what looks like a cheap wig holding the ray gun but of course no face to show who or what this really is. And of course there are no independent witnesses attesting to this mysterious being so we only have this ridiculous photo to add to an already ridiculous story.

http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/File:Alena1_close_up.jpg

Now for the final nail in the coffin. Look again at the 5 minute video you can get to in my last post and go to the 4:20 mark. Here you will see a close up of the hole in the tree. Now look at what you see when you look through the hole - basically the sky. There are also 2 still photos of this I've provided showing this below. Notice how the tree is on a hill and Meier would have been below it shooting up.

However, we also have other photos that were taken in order to support the ray gun story. The only problem is in these photos what we see is a lot of vegetation that does not support what would be behind the hole in the tree.

So unless this ray gun can fire a laser that can change direction we've got a serious problem here. And of course we know now what that problem is - it's a hoax.

The phony ray gun episode is just one of the many easy to debunk parts of the Billy Meier story. It's quite obvious to me when you perpetrate a hoax like this it's hard to debunk some parts until you go a bit overboard and start embellishing the story such as Meier has done. The only reason he has gotten away with it (maybe not the right term) as long as he has is because it's not a legal crime what he is doing. If it was, this story would have gone away a long time ago. Instead, I'm afraid it will linger on long after we are all gone but that still won't make it true.

So keep coming up with your lame explanations when you don't have any real answers to the serious questions and I'm sure there will always be some out there willing to buy in to this BS. I too like a good bit of fiction now and then but when I'm looking for the truth - the truth is what I want and you won't find it with the Billy Meier story. Case closed.

I'm not going to comment any more on this blog, as it's obvious no-one here is really interested, sufficiently skilled, or, able to thoroughly investigate this case and are looking to just confirm their bias and I'd just be wasting everyone's time spending any more of it here.

Honestly, if you cannot find anything in the Meier case for you, Fine: Move on and peace.

Dr. Randle, I'm surprised that you, a professional aviator have apparently chosen to ignore Meier's UFO evidence. Anyone who has carefully observed Meier's UFO films who also has a good sense of movement will see that Meier's UFO's do not move like models. Critical movements have yet to be duplicated. For example, the "Pendulum" UFO film shot in Hinwil contains a number of such features:

A smooth, wobble-free transition from one straight line path to another, perpendicular to it in less than one full turn(270º turn).

Accelerations and decelerations inconsistent with a simple pendulum. These can be seen particularly well in a direct, side-by-side comparison with a duplication attempt. It has also manifested as a constantly changing "pendulum" period as Rhal Zahi has discovered(http://www.rhalzahi.com/docs/pendulum-EN.pdf).

A very specific instance of acceleration can be seen in one maneuvre resembling a conical pendulum where the object slowly and gradually increases the circular path's radius. Consider the minute and precise levels of hand force required to pull something like this off. You may not realize just how difficult it is until you try it yourself.

Wobble rate of Meier's UFO does not match that of a swinging model. The wobble of a small model is in fact a tiny pendulum with the center of gravity of the model acting as the pendulum bob. The pendulum period or wobble rate will be determined by the size of the model. Meier's UFO wobbles at a much slower rate requiring something much larger than a 1-ft model.

No visible hand pulls. Meier has one arm and no known nor suspected accomplices.

The position of the UFO, at least in one instance would require an alleged pendulum node to shift horizontally(as well as vertically to alter pendulum period). This complicates the hoax theory substantially, requiring a very elaborate set-up no one has been able to figure out in over forty years.

Tree top movement where no contact with the object has been made. This can be seen in a close-up of the UFO, as recorded by Nippon TV. Impossible with a swinging model but easily explained by wake turbulence. The Stevens investigation concluded that particular "beamship" to be 21-ft wide, slightly smaller than most general aviation planes. We do not know its mass but the amount of tree movement suggests something of a similar mass, maybe heavier.

Aside from the impossible physics there are two instances of a "jump" which at first glance looks like film cuts. However, close inspection reveals the object fading out then back over a number of frames. Impossible with a film cut.

You can see a side-by-side of Meier's with Phil Langdon's duplication attempt in my video. Please excuse the cheekiness:

https://youtu.be/SNlmFfb0ADs

Here is a closer look at the infamous 270º turn:

https://youtu.be/gMFqSxX1b-g

The tree top movement occurs at least once, here during the 270º maneuvre(20:32):

https://youtu.be/K58MjoKSMPo

All the inconsistencies, contradictions and discrepancies as well as the general look of "fakeness" in the Meier case can be explained by ET's whose policy it is to include deliberate disinformation in order to maintain their stated objective of generating controversy:

"...such things as the strange flight maneuvers of our flying objects had been performed to generate doubt, deliberation and this worldwide UFO controversy" ~Ptaah(Contact Report 251)